Albino’s Election Analysis

For political junkies like me, this year in politics is more fun than Disneyland. The Republican field is CHAOTIC and unpredictable, and it looks like the Clinton dynasty is finally getting a stake through the heart by an attractive young candidate named, “Obama”.

GOODBYE, HILLARY. DON’T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU ON THE WAY OUT

Let’s start with the democrats. Ding dong the witch is DEAD babeeeee! Even though it would have given me greater pleasure to see her take a whupping in the general election, somehow having her own party repudiate her is pretty cool. Watching that gang of Clintonistas on the stage after 70 percent of Iowa’s democrats gave them the boot (that rally was actually in a museum…ironic, huh?) was delicious. Words cannot express how tired I am of Hillary and her gang. They will hang on, kicking and screaming, just like Kennedy did, even after he had been eliminated by Mondale, but, believe me, they are gone.

Rasmussen has Obama leading by more than ten points already, and, barring a horrific secret or total collapse in the debates, Obama will finish her off on Tuesday.

She was even booed by fellow democrats at a dinner last night when she trotted out her new, lame claim to “change”…. watch the video here:

OBAMA HAS THE JUICE…HE IS AN EXCEPTIONAL CANDIDATE

I watched Obama’s speech in its entirety Thursday night, and he actually brought tears to my eyes….I’m not kidding… He will NEVER get my vote, but his speech moved me the same way I am moved by ML King speeches or that famous speech Mario Cuomo gave in 1984. Obama can touch the heart with his stirring, exciting rhetoric that appeals to us all as Americans: “No more red states, no more blue states, we came together as Americans to say that we want a change.” Then when he started riffing on “hope” in a Black preacher’s cadence, I knew I was watching something special.

What makes him so effective is that he reaches up higher, in his speeches, beyond the little details, and paints in broad strokes about the greatness of America and the need for us to come together as Blacks, Whites, democrats and republicans and hope again. Go watch the speech and you’ll see what I mean. This kid has traction, momentum, and is catching fire. The only thing, in my view, that will stop him from getting to the White House is a major screwup, a skeleton in his closet, or some nut killing him.

SO WHY NOT THE CHARISMATIC KID FROM CHICAGO?

Iowa bloggers report lots of “hit” dirt against him, saying that he’s Muslim, that he was sworn into the Senate with a Koran and that he doesn’t salute the flag. All this is nonsense, but he is scary, and he won’t get my vote, because of his policies:

1 He will pull out of Iraq in 16 months….WHAT? How can you pull us out now when we’re winning? How can you put a date on withdrawal? Huh?

2 He is enthusiastically pro-abortion. During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He even voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents.

3. He offers a lot of platitudes and liberal solutions for education and health care with ZERO details. He claims that he will work with insurance companies, but how? Give us details.

4. Ok, folks. He really does need experience. Change sounds cool, and it’s fun to run against Washington D.C., but 2 years in the Senate has not prepared him to be President of the United States. Even George W had 6 years as governor of the third largest state in America. Bill Clinton is right. This would be a “roll of the dice”. He is untested and unprepared for the burden. What would he do if we were under attack? Is he ready?

HUCKAFEVER!!!

Now for our republican brethren. The Huckster is hot, but McCain is hotter, and Romney will need to change his magic underpants after he sees the results in New Hampshire. And memo to Thompson and Rudy: “You’ve got to play to win, dudes!” “I’m sitting this one out”, is not a winning strategy.

Here are my thoughts on the slate…and it is ANYBODY’S GAME (except for Romney).

HUCKABEE – Love his stand on abortion and eliminating the IRS for a consumption tax. Not thrilled with his record in Arkansas of taxing and spending (Martha, care to weigh in here?) This has to be a proud moment for Southern Baptists. He is the most personable, charming candidate (had to be to get through all those church fights with the deacons).

ROMNEY – He’s toast…stiff and corporate… “Can’t Buy Me Love”, dude. And then there’s that problem of belonging to a weird religion with all those secrets. And if you’re going to switch positions on abortion, what was your “come to Jesus” moment that changed your mind? (like meeting a possible abortion victim or seeing a fetus on a 4d sonogram). He had no such moment…he simply switched when he decided to run for President. Weak, Mitt…really weak.

MCCAIN – I can’t help but admire him, but isn’t he a little too old for the job? And what about all his co-sponsored bills with Kennedy? And McCain/Fiengold speech-limiting law was TERRIBLE.

THOMPSON – I like his platform, but WHERE IS HE? Zero visibility and no enthusiasm. If you want my vote, GET TO WORK EARNING IT, BRO!

RUDY – Um, no thanks. Maybe Secretary of Defense, but NOT President. Too many liberal positions and cross-dressing over 13 times…what was that all about? And his own kids won’t speak to him. And his strategy of starting in Florida? Dude, what were you thinking.

PAUL – Bwahahahahahahaahah ahaha!!! Props for being Texan, but run as a libertarian, little fella. And good luck with pulling all our troops back within our borders and hoping terrorism goes away.

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Saturday, January 5th, 2008 at 6:14 pm and is filed under Humor, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

I totally disagree that if Hillary loses in NH she’s done. that’s way premature. Iowa and NH are hardly the best barometers of the country’s opinion. Honestly the only thing that matters is Super Tuesday especially getting the nod from the greatest state in the union, California.

Daniel…Momentum is what you are discounting in your Super Tuesday analysis. Her crushing defeats will totally demoralize and empty her campaign of cash. She is DONE. Obama will roll into South Carolina a big winner, gaining momentum along the way…I think when she cried during a speech today, the realization was sinking in.

Are we really ready for a president who cries when things don’t go their way? I don’t think so. Big Mo is important. You lose big Mo and the money starts drying up. But I’m not ready to write her off yet but she’d better be worried about losing momemtum to Osama. Just like the Cowboys had better be worried about the Giants rolling into town with Big Mo on their side.

Props to your Chargers, but you know you had to change your shorts a few times during the first half yesterday. The Cowboys will be fine. We needed a good rest, and now we will defeat the Patriots in the Superbowl.

I’m telling you guys…Hillary is TOAST. Even Bill can’t hold a crowd’s attention anymore. The Clinton dynasty is over.

My cousin Nate called me and made a spot on observation on Hillary’s crying jag this afternoon. She is like the teacher’s pet who gets all her work done, has her checklists, waits her turn, only to get left alone the night of the prom, losing out to the young, good-looking, popular girls. She seems to be saying, “It’s not fair! It was my turn!” Sorry, Hillary. “Don’t cry for me New Hampshire”.

ok ok so Harkin was from Iowa but Obama was from neighboring Illinois. South Carolina may very well go to Edwards (as he is from North Carolina).

As much credence as the pundits want to give to these early states I just don’t think you can count anyone in or out yet.

California and New York traditionally goes to the democrats, but if there is enough of a fight between Obama and Clinton perhaps they can scare enough dem’s away from the polls and give a republican a fighting chance. Ohio and Florida wouldn’t matter after that.

As much mo as Obama has I just don’t think he’s electable on a large scale.

That crying clip seems to be a desperate attempt to regain the women voting block she thought she had.

Clinton is a strong woman and strong women cry like that very intentionally as a sort of guilt bomb to persuade you that even though they are strong they are still women and have the womanly qualities that people admire (think ideal mother).

The strong woman paradox is what makes her unelectable but will give her the ability to hang in there for a long time.

I for one want her to stick around as long as possible because the more her and Obama divide the dems the better it is for the republican candidate.

Obama is young and black and intelligent. Right off the bat people want to love him. He is tall and thin and reminds us of some charming professional basketball player. People in our culture have been trained to love people that fit his physical description already. I really think that his being black has a lot to do with how much people like him. People are willing, even eager to demonstrate that they’re ok with a black President, if someone qualified came along. Well, now everyone has their chance to put their money where their mouth is. A vote for Obama is a vote against racism. A vote for Obama soothes my conscience, because it proves I’m not racist. A vote for Obama makes me a good person.

Furthermore, he’s trying to paint himself as a respectable Christian, who nonetheless is a Democrat. There are lots and lots of liberal Christians who are sick and tired of the Republicans, and want to believe that it’s ok to be a Christian and a liberal. To those people, Obama also soothes their conscience. A vote for Obama is a vote that proves that it’s ok to be a Christian, and yet not be a part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy” of the “religious right”. Obama makes liberal Christians feel good about themselves.

On top of this, he is pro-abortion. Do you know that there are even reformed (point: very conservative) people who are endorsing Obama because they think a stance on abortion shouldn’t count when we who believe in two kingdoms vote for a President? (This is nonsense, and not what most reformed believe.) Obama appeals to Christians who are secretly pro-abortion, but who are feeling just a little bit ashamed of themselves for it. But he also appeals to Christians who are sick of fighting a losing battle on abortion, people who want to give up on the battle. Obama makes them feel better about giving up on abortion. And as mentioned before, at least some reformed Christians are making up arguments about the two kingdoms (kingdom of God vs. kingdom of man) that justifies this stance. After all, they say, why should this issue affect a man’s ability to be President?

In short, Obama is an incarnation of our culture’s views of piety today. As Jesus Christ was the fulfilled law of God in the flesh, so Obama is the fulfilled law of our culture in the flesh. A vote for him makes you feel pious according to our society’s man-made laws and norms. People like him because he embodies what our culture considers to be virtuous. In supporting his bid for the Presidency, people are only doing what Aristotle said long ago, namely that if you find a man with perfect virtue, the only thing to do is make him king. Obama is exactly the kind of President our modern culture has longed for. I’ll be pretty surprised if he is not elected President. Even if he isn’t elected this time, he probably eventually will be.

Thanks for the opportunity to clarify. I don’t mean to say that he is the perfect man in the eyes of our society necessarily, although that’s probably true. What I mean to say is that he is virtuous himself, but more importantly, voting for him is virtuous because of his physical appearance and because of his political positions in light of his religious claims. Anyway, the whole package is just too attractive. Peoples’ love for him is simply no mystery.

The Republicans debated tonight and Fred Thompson did the best. He hammered Huckabee over whether his record is more of a democrat’s record than a conservative, and offered up several strong defenses of his own record and belief system, especially why he his the most conservative of the bunch. His best line was responding to a question about Iranians attacking U.S. warships: “A few more steps and they would have been introduced to those virgins they’ve been looking for.”

Huckabee also had some good moments. He said that when anyone gets a U.S. ship in their sites, the next things they will see are the gates of hell — big applause line. He also defended the Southern Baptist position of women graciously submitting to their husbands’ servant leadership (what does this have to do with the presidency?) — I thought he weasled a little bit on the Apostle Paul’s words, but he turned it around into a defense of the practice of his fatih as a Christian…to big applause.

McCain had a tough night…again getting tangled up in the immigration mess, and his only comedy line falling flat — “I won’t do business with El Quaeda because they only sell burkas and only take one-way flights.”

Ron Paul did his usual contrarian schtick…had some fans in the audience.

Thompson hasn’t shown up at all. It looks like he’s not even trying to win anything.

I’m a Thompson fan but I have to wonder, as with Guliani, What are you waiting for????

Mac is so old and so weak on the biggest issue, illegal immigration, that I guarantee he will not win a single state south of the mason dixon line. While he may win Arizona I think that is after Super Tuesday and he should be gone by then.

Huckster has the evangelical base but that means little if he can’t get the conservative majority. I also think he’s drawing an extra crowd of anti-mormons.

I’ll make an albino like statement and say that if Romney doesn’t win Michigan (his native state) he’s out. Ironically he seems to be the best candidate on the immigration crisis.

there are rumblings of a bloomberg independent shake up. I don’t know who that would hurt more the republicans or the dems?

If the Huckster can carry the southern states, especially Florida, I think he can actually win it (the nomination) and if he gets a suitable running mate, preferably a senator with international experience, he can win it all.

But again, this is all ridiculous speculation until Super Tuesday. The only thing that matters between now and then is not running out of money, which it seems Rudy is doing.

Doesn’t look good for republicans. Democrats have energy, and, evidenty, more turn-out. But, I will point out that 10 months is an eternity, and world events have a way of changing election outcomes. Who knows?

The guy is an actor. He is immensely qualified to play the role of politician. Yesterday, he looked like a President, spoke like a President, and acted like a Presidential candidate. He was confident and articulate.

Everyone has been saying that Thompson has been asleep for a while, but has suddenly come to life. That’s clearly true. The question is why.

There is an answer to that question, and it may be a smart strategy. Again, he’s an actor. He knows how to play a crowd.

Consider how these first few primaries tend to be a real circus. Right now, no one knows who the real front runner is. Every primary yields different winners. It’s an emotional roller coaster for the candidates and for their campaigns. It confuses people, giving them too many choices. One candidate might start out strong and then burn out. That leads to confusion among the people.

The more I think about it, the more I think Thompson’s strategy is brilliant. He began by lowering expectations. No one was talking about him. He was an after thought, though still on the scene. Meanwhile, people are fluttering from supporting one candidate today, another tomorrow.

Then, after a few primaries have come and gone, and everyone is worn out with the candidates, sick of having their eyes glued to the TV and tired of the whole process, then all of a sudden, at just the right time, Thompson comes out of nowhere and makes a big splash, and everyone’s talking about him going into big Tuesday.

So can a Republican win the Presidency? Of course! While everyone is hating Bush based on emotions, and it makes the Democrats look like they’re ahead, they have forgotten to make Americans hate conservatism. Bush isn’t actually all that conservative. Fighting a war on Islam, I mean terror, and being an Evangelical don’t make you conservative.

The Democrats are so concerned with emotions, so concerned with the here and now, so concerned with victory right now at any cost, that they have forgotten to look long term. People are tired of Bush, to be sure, but they’re also tired of hating him. They just don’t care anymore. They want to move on. The Democrats have worn everyone out.

So let’s say it’s Thompson versus Obama. I don’t doubt it would be a tough race. But it might not be as tough as you think. Obama is young and inexperienced. And right now, Americans are scared. They don’t want some young idealist in the oval office, they want someone who will protect them and be wise. Thompson fits that bill nicely. He’s almost grandfatherly. You look at him and you trust him. He exudes competence.

Obama can indeed stir the heart, but there is no substance. To be sure, many Americans are anti-intellectual and abhor thinking. But while Obama may be able to make you like him, he doesn’t know how to make you feel safe. Grandpa Thompson can do that. He makes you feel like a child who has had a bad dream, and Grandpa comes in and tells you not to be afraid, and his presence comforts you and his soothing words.

To be inspiring is good to a point, but if you don’t have experience, it’s hard for inspiring alone to carry you to the White House. Obama would have a very hard time beating Thompson.

Just put yourself in Obama’s shoes. He has to learn how to comfort people. That’s why he’s been hammering on this hope business.

Here’s the real difference between these two candidates. Obama wants to inspire us to hope in ourselves, while Thompson would inspire us to hope in him.

A President must be our hero. Remember the people of Israel who wanted a king to fight for them. That’s what we want a head of state for. We want him to fight for us. And now more than ever. We have traded the threat of the Soviet Union for radical Islam. Whether people are more afraid than they should be is another issue, the fact is, they’re afraid.

Whoever gets the Republican nod needs to bear this in mind. He must get the American people to hope in him, not in themselves. This is the fundamental difference between the Democrats and the Republicans. The names of the parties tell you that.

I have no doubt that Obama will be the Democrats’ nominee. No doubt. And I wouldn’t be surprised if he asks Richardson to be his running mate. What a powerful combination that would be!

So we need to think about who could defeat this pair. Thompson could, if last night is any indication.

Mitt Romney could, if he could somehow grow a personality. He’s got that New England, Robert Redford demeanor. But he’s got to develop some wit and charm too. Unfortunately, that seems unlikely.

Huckabee can’t defeat Obama. No chance. None at all. I’m sorry if it offends anyone, but he’s a moron. Obama will get 100% of the independent vote against Huckabee. Huckabee wouldn’t even get all of the Evangelical vote, because Obama has painted himself as a devout Christian. So liberal Christians, as I said above, will vote for Obama. I say Huckabee’s a moron because he’s a Democrat disguised as a Republican claiming to be a man of God but can’t distinguish between OT Israel and America. No thanks. I’d almost rather have Obama myself. Almost anyway.

Ron Paul can’t win. Inarticulate and shrill presentation. Good ideas, but too rigid to win. Obama would eat him alive.

McCain would likewise be defeated by Obama. He’s old and tired and you almost feel sorry for him. Obama is young and fresh. And McCain is definitely on the wrong side of many issues.

Finally, Guiliani. Sigh. If only he wasn’t pro-abortion. He can’t get the Republican nomination that way. Won’t happen. That’s why he can’t raise money. I can’t vote for a pro-abortion candidate. He’s under the mistaken impression that his ability to govern New York is enough to help him coast into the White House. He has since learned that that was wrong, and I think now he’s just going through the motions. He could have been a good President, but his morality is a mess and everyone knows it. That’s no way to get the Republican nomination. He should have sought the Democratic nomination. He might have gotten it. Then we’d have an interesting race on our hands. But boy, he did an awfully good job as mayor of NY. He really turned that place around.

So start getting used to the idea. Obama will be the candidate to beat, and we need to start thinking about who can beat him. Thompson fits the bill. In all the movies he’s been in, he has played a strong, competent politician with wisdom and integrity. If he gets the nomination, I don’t doubt people will be watching his movies. It’s all a matter of image friends, all a matter of image.

Obama would have been a great candidate and a guaranteed winner in peacetime. But this is not peacetime. We’re at war. You’ll notice that Obama doesn’t want us to be at war. Smart move on his part. No wonder the Democrats always protest war. They gain power in peacetime, not war.

A new book examining Bill and Hillary’s White House relationship is coming out next month, excerpted by the Daily Mail: If you aren’t already really nervous about Hillary gaining power, this peak inside her marriage and work relationship with Bill when he was President will give you the heebie-jeebies. Take the time to read the entire excerpt, then PRAY for our country’s future.

Often, Bill would arrive at the Oval Office feeling buoyant, “almost whistling as he whipped through papers,” recalled adviser David Gergen. Then the phone would ring and Hillary would be on the line.

“His mood would darken,” wrote Gergen, “his attention wander, and hot words would spew out. Had we seen the outrageous things his enemies were saying about him now? Why was his staff screwing him again? What,I would wonder, had she said to him now?”

Even more disconcerting were Bill’s evening phone calls – what Communications Director George Stephanopoulos called the “nightcap” – when Bill would chew out an adviser while Hillary was nearby.

“It was completely at odds with the emotional tenor of the relationship that person had with Bill,” said one top official.

“It was vicious. When she walked out of the room, everything changed. Then the tone would change completely and he would say: ‘Why don’t you come over and watch football?'”

In meetings, Hillary’s dissatisfaction could curdle the atmosphere when she directed her ire at his subordinates. “It was her way of saying to Bill: ‘You are incompetent. Look at how your staff treats you,'” said White House adviser Robert Boorstin.

“Rather than insult Bill directly, she used the staff. People were scared of her because they knew she could chop off their testicles if she so chose. You did not cross Hillary.”

Adviser David Gergen described how, with a dozen or so of her husband’s aides gathered round, Hillary would let loose a tirade. “She would launch a deadly missile straight at [Bill’s] heart and just before it hit, the missile would explode, the shrapnel hitting the staff.”

Her vocabulary had a common theme: that the President’s men were “wimps.” Recalled one aide: “It was: ‘You don’t have balls, no guts.’ The language was so striking. It seemed that every criticism was dual purpose and could apply to him, but at the last minute she didn’t apply it to him.”

Bill would react by flushing crimson and lashing out at his staff. “She knew how to press his buttons,” said the senior official. “It was a conscious pattern.”

Later, as the extent of Hillary’s power in the White House became known, former President Richard Nixon was moved to observe: “Hillary pounds the piano so hard that Bill can’t be heard.”

This is where it gets interesting. Nobody expected Huckabee to carry much in the north but now we head south with SC and Florida. Not only are these folks mostly evangelical, but they are (I imagine) probably anti-mormon.

I can see Guiliani actually making noise in Florida with their huge number of native New Yorkers, but other than that I can’t imagine the Huckster losing in either of these states.

Thompson would make a great VP for someone. Heck I prefer him as president to almost any other candidate but he just doesn’t even look like he’s trying.

Ugh…this is really sick. Obama’s pastor (and I use that term broadly), Jeremiah Wright, Jr., takes a crack at the Clintons with a reference to Monica Lewinsky FROM THE PULPIT. We call the pulpit “the sacred desk”; what is he thinking? And why do African American churches get to totally break the rules about endorsing political candidates?

The packed house at Trinity United – some 3,000 in all – had been in the pews for almost two hours, energized by a 200-voice choir and a rousing dance performance Sunday, when the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stepped up to speak.

Wright is well-known in Chicago and in the black church world for taking over a small United Church of Christ congregation in 1972 and turning it into an 8,000-member powerhouse. More recently, his name has become familiar as the longtime spiritual mentor of Barack Obama, who joined the church in 1988 – a move Obama says was important to shaping his identity as an African-American.

The connection has thrown a spotlight on some of Wright’s more controversial remarks in a church that advertises itself as “unashamedly Black and unapologetically Christian” – at times espousing a black liberation theology that can sound as exclusionary as Obama’s message is inclusionary. He has also equated Zionism with racism.

On Sunday morning – amid intensified crossfire between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Obama over the use of race in the Democratic presidential campaign – Wright was preaching from the Gospel of John, using his powerful style to link the story of the loaves and fishes to a contemporary political message…

Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton “because her husband was good to us,” he continued.

“That’s not true,” he thundered. “He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky.”

I can make a case for why every one of these guys can’t win. It’s a little harder to divine who will be the last man standing.

But with a race this exciting, why don’t reporters just sit back and enjoy it? Instead, there’s this undercurrent of angst: The race is insane. Three contests, three winners. It’s a deep, dark mystery. This has never happened before in recorded history. How can this not be over by February 5 so we can all go on vacation? The party is in crisis, maybe even in therapy. How can there not be a front-runner???
And I think Salon’s Walter Shapiro put his experienced finger on it: “There is the irresistible human temptation to impose rationality on chaos.”

That’s it! Journalists are ticked off because the Republican race is defying our attempts to wrap it into a nice, neat narrative. This is what we do for a living. And if we can’t say what’s going on, who needs us? You could get just as good a take from your Uncle Harry.

And now they’re saying that McCain, who’s 70 YEARS OLD, is the clear front runner, and the most electable. Ugh. Isn’t McCain the one who said that we’d be in Iraq for 100 years? The Captain America mentality has got to end. The world hates us, and we just keep making it worse. Terrorism will not come to an end unless we can convince the world that we’re not trying to rule it. But the fact is, we ARE trying to rule it. Ugh!

The way I see it we will have a permanent military base in Iraq. It’s a key strategic location with billions of gallons of oil. Why would we leave there?

Why does the world hate us? nobody sends more in foreign aid. Nobody gives more in natural disasters. Nobody imports as many goods as us. And oh yeah, we have people in America from every other nation on earth.

Far
We’ve been traveling far
Without a home
But not without a star

Free
Only want to be free
We huddle close
Hang on to a dream

On the boats and on the planes
They’re coming to America
Never looking back again
They’re coming to America

Home, don’t it seem so far away
Oh, we’re traveling light today
In the eye of the storm
In the eye of the storm

Home, to a new and a shiny place
Make our bed, and we’ll say our grace
Freedom’s light burning warm
Freedom’s light burning warm

Everywhere around the world
They’re coming to America
Every time that flag’s unfurled
They’re coming to America

Got a dream to take them there
They’re coming to America
Got a dream they’ve come to share
They’re coming to America

Now the only question left is why. All you have to do is ask them. They say it everyday from every corner of the globe. It’s because they perceive us as trying to rule the world like a benevolent mother. They resent it. They think it’s arrogant.

Are they right or wrong? More importantly, do they have a right to their opinion? Do they have a right to reject American leadership over the world?

The ideal in our country is democracy, right? That the people have the right to elect their leaders? Why aren’t we giving the world the right to reject the US as its leader?

It’s because they perceive us as trying to rule the world like a benevolent mother. They resent it. They think it’s arrogant.

Just like you and I perceive the Democrats as trying to rule the U.S. like a benevolent mother. We resent big government. We think Democrats are arrogant to assume they could make everything right with enough social programs, public health care, … And yet the Democrats don’t understand why any sincere, caring person could ever vote against them. “We’re just trying to help! Don’t you want the U.S. to be a better place?”

That’s a good analogy right there. Too bad it doesn’t solve any problems — but only help explain why problems can’t be solved.

I continue to believe that Barack will roll over Hillary, then bury the republicans in November. Now Byron York (no democrat) of the National Review agrees with me:

I went to Barack Obama’s rally here, on Sunday night, with a Republican friend who had never seen the Illinois senator in action before. Watching the crowd of more than 3,000 fill up the convention center, watching the people send up waves of energy to Obama, and watching him play off that energy in a speech that was one of the best political performances anyone has seen this year, my Republican friend said, simply, “Oh, s—t.” He recalled the scene from Jaws, in which the small seaside town’s sheriff realizes how big the shark he’s tracking truly is, and says, “We’re gonna need a bigger boat.” What my friend didn’t have to say was that he was deeply worried that Republicans just don’t have a bigger boat.

Thompson wasn’t in the race to help someone else win, either McCain or Huckabee. He wanted to win it himself. SC was his last chance to stay in the race. He lost, he dropped out.

I can’t believe you like Huckabee. Is it for some reason besides that he used to be a preacher?

Obama can still win. People think the Clintons are invincible, and that’s their power. They aren’t invincible. They’re liars and no one likes that. Obama has done a pretty good job of pointing that out.

Not that I’m rooting for him or anything.

I don’t think I’ll be voting in the Republican primary. After all, I’m not a registered Rep, but a Libertarian. I’ll be voting for whoever the Libertarian candidate turns out to be I think.

The Democrats want to be everyone’s mother, while the Republicans want the world to bow to America. Boo on both counts.

I’m not a big huck fan. I liked Thompson the best of the republicans but couldn’t see him winning or aligning with any candidate but Huck. That was the only reason I’d like to see huck win it (the republican nod), but by himself? no thanks.

I’m almost more scared of a Baptist then a Mormon.

Honestly I’m starting to lead towards Romney.

I need a Republican debate. There is one tomorrow in Florida (sponsored by the environmental defense fund????) and then one on Wednesday in California.

With all the money, publicity, and support he has, he could make a stronger than normal 3rd party candidate. I could see him taking in 3-5% of the popular vote, most of that coming from “Independents” who usually vote Republican.

He may not pull a Ross Perot and grab a large chunk of votes, unless for some reason Guliani wins the nomination.

In any case, I can’t wait till Fox News and Sean Hannity (Albino’s man-crush) really start the muck-raking on Mr. Paul when they realize that Paul might cost McHuckaRom the election.

theguapo: Don’t you, at some level, see that Ron Paul is a little weird and eccentric? Why can’t libertarians come up with better standard bearers? And why is he running as a republican, anyway? Can you really imagine him as our Commander-in-Chief?

Speaking of third parties and weridos, I hear Governor Bloomburg and Ralph Nader are both sending signals about jumping in. Who will they hurt the most?

I do like Sean Hannity (he’s a great American), but I don’t like the man-crush he has on Rudy G.

I do see that. I have no problem admitting that he is a bit eccentric, and he is not the Great Communicator. But, his ideas are probably not digestible by most Americans. Whether it’s poor education or mass media brainwashing – most people (including most candidates) do not have the capacity or desire to discuss things like fiat currency, historical views of interventionism, looming budgetary disasters, or at the most basic level – what the Constitution says.

Despite his communication shortcomings, however, I believe his views are rock solid. He knows his stuff, and he actually believes what he is saying. That’s worth something to me.

I realize that you are very much in favor of the Iraq war, and that colors your view of him, but I’d at least like you not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Tell me that you like his views on monetary policy, limited government, immigration, abortion, etc. Don’t just tell me that he’s a loony bin with even loonier supporters. I know that – tell me that you like being the world police, or that you like 7 trillion dollars of debt, or that you like fiat currency. At that point, I will take out my Constitution and writings of the Founding Fathers (except for Hamilton) and spank you with them like a red-headed step child :)

I’m probably not going to bother to vote in the Rep primary. Again, I’m not a republican. The republican party is what we call neo-conservative these days. Basically, for those that don’t know, it means that they want America to run the world. I find that to be fundamentally unjust.

Ron Paul has good views, but as has been said, he’s a horrible communicator. He does strange things like voting against statements by the Congress that implores Russia to look into the deaths of journalists.

He doesn’t seem interested in explaining why he would vote in such a way, and since no one is really interested in attacking him, because they don’t need to, it never comes up. But he votes that way because it’s not Congress’ place to pass such legislation. It undermines the President’s authority over foreign policy and diplomacy when they do. Congress is taking on the role of the President when they encourage Russia to do this or that. It’s not their job, so it’s unconstitutional, so Paul votes against it. It’s as simple as that.

He wants out of Iraq because he feels that our taking Saddam out of power was unjust. In principle it is unjust. We are not the world police, or at least we shouldn’t be. The problem is, Ron Paul isn’t explaining himself. So no one understands him. So they just think he’s weird.

Interventionalism — 9/11 and Islamofascism changed everything
Budgetary Disasters — I’m with you
Fiat Currency — ???
The Constitution — I’m in favor
Limited Government — check
Immigration — No, I favor enforcement first, then a path to citizenship
Abortion — Ok, but that doesn’t make him unique
World Police — We are the last superpower. Isolationism would be a disaster.

The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty.

We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal.

Abraham Lincoln said, “Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”

——————————————-

The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, “That risk is fanciful,” I say we know the Taliban supported Al Qaida. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people, who regard it as God’s will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God’s judgment.

Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder, and we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad.

This isn’t fantasy, it is 21st-century reality, and it confronts us now.

——————————————

Tell the world why you’re proud of America. Tell them when the Star-Spangled Banner starts, Americans get to their feet, Hispanics, Irish, Italians, Central Europeans, East Europeans, Jews, Muslims, white, Asian, black, those who go back to the early settlers and those whose English is the same as some New York cab driver’s I’ve dealt with … but whose sons and daughters could run for this Congress.

Tell them why Americans, one and all, stand upright and respectful. Not because some state official told them to, but because whatever race, color, class or creed they are, being American means being free. That’s why they’re proud.

———————————————

And I know it’s hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I’ve never been to, but always wanted to go…

I know out there there’s a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, “Why me? And why us? And why America?”

And the only answer is, “Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.”

Even if you believe our having gone to war with Iraq was unjust that doesn’t make an immediate or hasty withdrawal just. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Right?

Albino’s quotations of Blair sound nice but the reality is far more gruesome. It’s not about whether or not we “deserve” freedom. It’s about maintaining the freedoms we have. If we don’t do the “world policing” that we do then we won’t be around very long. If we don’t speak out against Iran’s nuclear endeavors they will go forward as an antisemitic state. They won’t stop at the destruction of Israel, they will seek those who have defended Israel and that’s us.

Even if we stop defending Israel we are still in the crosshairs and will always be because, real or not, we are perceived as a “Christian” nation to Anti-Christian governments.

We’re just too big of our own good. Should we start sucking at the Olympics too? Would that make other nations like us?

I’m not sure that it changed anything except the scale and location of something that had happened many times before. I think a more interesting question is: what caused Islamic terrorism to be directed against the United States in the first place (long before 9/11)? I’d like to get your honest opinion on that. Why do they hate and attack us?

That is a GREAT question. I spoke with a guy here locally who used to be a muslim, and he had lots of contacts in the radical fascist fringe (jihadist) movement. He says that they used to laugh when we blamed ourselves, our foreign policy and our military bases for their jihad. What drives them is actually the doctrine that the world must be converted to Islam by force (jihad) — imposing Sharia Law on everyone. The United States simply represents, to them, the biggest target of, what they perceive to be, Christianity. They hate the influence America has on the world for democracy, rights for women, etc.

I know this doesn’t fit the mainstream media or “Ron Paul” template for why radical Islamo-fascists want to kill us, so that’s why you don’t hear about it.

Don’t you guys believe that this world in which we live will always have a struggle for world supremecy? Alexander the Great, Napoleon, Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the USA. If we do not assert ourselves as that world power someone else will and their ideals are far more dangerous than freedom for all.

We cannot bury our head in the sand and hope the bad guys go away. Sorry Hillary.

It’s true it’s our defense of Israel and our tolerance for Christianity that makes us a target.

While I wouldn’t have a problem abandoning Israel if it would help I also realize that it wont solve anything. We would still be a targeted. So we should probably NOT abandon Israel, or any other of our allies seeing as how the moment we do we allow genocide to occur. And I think that’s blood on our hands.

You say that we are not trying to rule the world, and I know that somewhere in what you said you offered a reason why I should believe that. The only problem is that I’m very dense, and I didn’t get your point. Could you explain to me why you don’t think the US is trying to rule the world?

For my part, ruling the world does not have to entail tyranny. Forcing other governments to be nice to their citizens is exercising authority over the world. Trying to make the world democratic because we say it should be is exercising rule over the world.

If we did not stand up against evil, the world would quickly descend into chaos. Rather than quibble about how we would rather not be in this position, it is more mature to see our position for what it is, and deal with it responsibly.

I agree that Ron Paul fails to offer a solution for Iraq and does indeed sound like a “quibbler”. (Memo to congressman Paul, “I would have never gone into Iraq” is not a solution!).

The “intelligence” that we had was enough to warrant the Iraqi invasion. The senate and congress agreed, that’s why they gave the president permission.

It’s funny how few argue about our being in Afghanistan, but all argue about our being in Iraq.

The intelligence that led us into Iraq was proved faulty but not unwarranted (the previous UN violations of Saddam as well as the war crimes were sufficient justification).

The intelligence that led us into Afghanistan was proved accurate and warranted, because the Taliban was protecting Bin Laden. That’s why no one argues against it.

Ron Paul should make it very clear that IF there is warrant and intelligence to go to war with another country in the interest of national security he would not be afraid to do so. He may believe like this, I think every candidate probably does, but he fails to express that.

That’s what standing up against evil should be. Evil that is aimed at us.

I don’t think we should involve ourselves in Sudan, Kenya or Nigeria (that’s the UN’s job, or perhaps the african union).

I don’t think we should involve ourselves in Belarus.

I don’t think we should involve ourselves in Venezuela.

I do think we should involve ourselves in countries that have real tangible threats to us or our allies.

Cuba, North Korea, Iran

We also need to carefully monitor countries like Pakistan and China that, if destabilized, pose a huge threat to American interests.

Venezuela has oil that we buy. Ever heard of Citgo? Furthermore, Chavez supports and works with the Marxist guerillas in Colombia, and they’re the ones that grow the drugs.

What happens in Africa also could prove to be a threat to us. We have embassies there, and furthermore, if we fail to act, to much of the world we look like we just don’t care. Now we look like we’re entirely self serving, and that makes poor people around the world think we’re fat and greedy (and they’d be right), and that produces terrorists. Some terrorists come out of Africa too, and some terrorists come out of other places because of what we have or have not done in Africa.

And everywhere ELSE in the world, the West in general is blamed for the woes of Africa because of colonialism, and America’s hands are not clean in that regard. This is how the world perceives us.

You can argue that we have an interest literally everywhere in the world. Because we do.

But let’s face it. We aren’t standing up against evil wherever it might rear its ugly head. Can anyone really justify that claim? We don’t twist the arms of nations like Saudi Arabia to make Christianity legal. What about missionaries being imprisoned in Ethiopia? What about the things that have happened in Chechnya?

Seriously Albino. Do you honestly simply equate the USA with “good”? Come on. We’re only out to uphold our own interests. We don’t actually CARE about human rights all over the world. We care about our interests, just like Daniel here admits.

We aren’t Captain America. We’re trying to be the benevolent rulers of the world, bringing hope and democracy wherever we go. Sound familiar? Ever heard of Pax Romana? The peace of Rome? The Roman Empire really did bring peace and prosperity and happiness wherever it went. But make no mistake, the Romans were in charge. The two cannot be separated, because the one brings about the other.

We’re no different. Our empire is just less visible, and not definable on the map.

I’m not denying that we have interests all over the world. Of course we do. I think the confusion stems from my word “involve”.

When I say we shouldn’t “involve” ourselves I mean militarily. I don’t think we should fight unless they are real tangible threat.

Consider the events of 1998 and 1999.

Iraq banned UN weapons inspectors and several violations.
US embassies were bombed by Kenya and Tanzania killing over 200 and injuring over 2000 African civilians and US citizens. These events were orchestrated by Osama Bin Laden.

What was the US military action during this time?
Well In Iraq we did nothing.
But in retaliation for the embassy bombings we launched 75 cruise missiles into Afghanistan killing a whopping 25 potential terrorists. We also launched some cruise missiles into the Sudan and destroyed a pharmaceutical plant.

Meanwhile in Serbia we dropped thousands of bombs and followed up by sending in “peacekeeping” forces. What was our strategic interest there? what did they have to do with the tangible threats to our country?

NOTHING.

It was the biggest misuse of military might in our nations history. If instead of going after Milochevic we had gone after Bin Laden and dropped those same bombs in Afghanistan and then set up “peace keepers” there 9/11 probably would have never happened.

An even greater irony is that the lives we were saving in kosovo were Muslims!

While Saddams son Uday is praising Bin Laden’s attack on the US embassies and Saddam is kicking UN weapons inspectors out of his country we are off trying to save muslims in Kosovo.

This is what I’m talking about. Iraq was a tangible threat to our country. Afghanistan was a tangible threat to our country.

Iran and North Korea are tangible threats.

Pakistan is a worry, so is China.

We need to be smart about what we do with our military might. Leaving everyone alone won’t work. Helping everyone won’t work. Being strong and smart is the only way to have relative security in our country. This is a knock on Ron Paul’s campaign. He doesn’t appear to have resolved military agenda and like it or not the role of the President is “commander and chief” of our armed forces.

To me, the two biggest factors this year are appointment of judges (abortion) and the job of Commander-in- Chief. Everything else is secondary. I am torn by this election cycle. On the one hand, as a political junky, I am loving the tightness of the race…this is really fun…but on the other hand, who we put in the oval office IS A BIG DEAL!

In the end, though, God will lead us along either way. I remember the day after Bill Clinton’s second victory, when most of us wanted to begin a period of mourning, (thank you, Bob Dole), Pastor Jack Hayford sent out an email saying that his heart was filled with joy and that Jesus was the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That was an encouraging word that gave me the right perspective again. Would I still feel awful if Hillary won? Of course. But then I would begin praying for her and I would still watch and enjoy the pageantry of her swearing in.

I am already feeling bad about President Bush’s departure. I believe history will be much kinder to him than current sentiment (just like Harry Truman). I believe he truly fears God, and though imperfect (Carl), he has given us conservative judges and protected us from terrorists.

Well, buckle up and hang on for the ride, people…it’ s gonna be A WILD FINISH!!!!

While I totally disagree with out involvement in Kosovo when i went there in 2006 I found that the people LOVE Americans.

One of my favorite TV shows “Dr Danger” follows this guy into all kinds of countries the average American doesn’t get to go to, Djibouti, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. This latest season he’s been traveling with the military and the people really seem to love the US troops. Including one scene in Afghanistan where they found and destroyed a field of Marijuana that the Taliban were using to finance there operations. The local where very happy to take away money from the hands of the Taliban.

There are many, many countries that love America and owe their very existence to our “interventionism”. I just think it needs to be more strategic.

As for the Bush criticism being poured out heavily by Clinton and Obama. WOW! It’s ridiculous. These past 8 years have been some of the greatest (not grayest) in American history. While the current mortgage situation is grim that’s hardly a testimony to 8 years of the Bush white house. When does the Democratic controlled senate and congress take some blame? What have they all done in the past year or two to improve the country? Exactly.

Ok, you’re right, not every person in the world hates us. But most governments do, and most people do too. There are exceptions, and you’re right, the Kosovars do love us (I’ve been there twice, and I can attest as well.)

Tell me more about that TV program. But I suspect it’s very selective in what it shows.

Congress is funny. Everyone in Congress can avoid taking the personal blame for the ills of the country, while blaming Congress as a whole, or the President. No single person in Congress ever gets blamed for anything. It’s stupid.

I don’t see it as a very “ra ra America” show at all. While he has visited US military bases and is very courteous to the troops his agenda does not seem politically motivated. It’s just a show trying to give people a look at what these foreign countries are really like. I’m excited for Wednesday night’s show because he is going to work with World Vision in Afghanistan and that’s an organization our youth give money to.

While I agree that there are many governments who are opposed to America I think there would be just as many who would be opposed to America’s non-involvement in their country.

My point is that the policy can’t be as rigid as “non-interventionism” is.

McCain is right on the war on Islamo-fascism, right on the Iraq surge, right on all of his votes for life. He is wrong on judges (expressed doubts about Alito because he was “too conservative” ), wrong on campaign finance legislation (to explain this, imagine saying, “You can drive anywhere you want, but you can only spend $50 on gas”…limiting money is limiting speech…period) , wrong on amnesty first, then enforcement (even telling my Texas Senator to “shut the %^&* up, you little chicken%^$&” when he voiced concerns in committee), and wrong when he voted against Bush’s tax cuts and against the marriage ammendment (that defined marriage as between a man and a woman)..McCain’ s age is also a concern for me.

Will it help if he picks Huckabee, a Baptist pastor, as his running mate? Probably. We preachers must stick together.

Is he better than Hillary or Obama, who are both enthusiastic liberals who are pro-abortion, pro-surrender in Iraq, pro-liberal judges, etc.? Of course. If given the choice between voting for McCain or one of those two, I will vote for McCain, but my vote will not be enthusiastic. I still believe that voting for an obscure weirdo is throwing away your vote.

It is obvious that Hillary would bring out more Republicans, out of sheer distaste and loathing, than Obama would.

Whoever ultimately wins the White House has my prayer and support as a fellow American.

This is NOT GOOD. I feel his pain, but sometimes we have to hold our nose, and support someone who we have more in common with. This does not bode will for November, though.

———————————————————
Dobson’s Sitting Out if McCain’s the Nominee

If McCain is the nominee, James Dobson says he sits out this election:

“I’m deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, who voted for embryonic stem cell research to kill nascent human beings, who opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, and who has little regard for freedom of speech, who organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.

“I am convinced Sen. McCain is not a conservative, and in fact, has gone out of his way to stick his thumb in the eyes of those who are. He has at times sounded more like a member of the other party. McCain actually considered leaving the GOP in 2001, and approached John Kerry about being Kerry’s running mate in 2004. McCain also said publicly that Hillary Clinton would make a good president. Given these and many other concerns, a spoonful of sugar does not make the medicine go down. I cannot, and I will not vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience.

“But what a sad and melancholy decision this is for me and many other conservatives. Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can’t vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life. These decisions are my personal views and do not represent the organization with which I’m affiliated. They do reflect, however, my deeply held convictions about the institution of the family, about moral and spiritual beliefs, and about the welfare of our country.”

If McCain wins the GOP nomination he will only be getting my vote if 1 of 2 things happen. 1. He is running against Hillary Clinton. I can’t think of a single person I WOULDN’T elect over Hillary. 2. He has a fantastic running mate. Given the choice right now between McCain and Obama I would honestly choose Obama. McCain is such a shady slippery guy I cannot trust him at all. Obama seems genuine, intelligent, and charismatic, and most importantly I know where he stands on all the issues, even if I disagree with his views.

With McCain, you stand a chance of getting a conservative judge, you stand a chance of having conservative influence, and you certainly have a Commander-in-Chief committed to victory. With Obama, you get a guaranteed liberal justice pick, a gauranteed surrender in Iraq, guaranteed support of gay marriage, and a promise to raise our taxes. He has also promised to give amnesty, beginning with drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens.

I have no idea where Obama stands on any issue because he never talks about issues! He is just tugging at the heart-strings of Americans with all his fell-good, lovey-dovey, hope, change, rhetoric. He has a great speech writer and is a good speaker, not exactly what it takes to be President. This guy is a fraud.

If he does win the nomination I can’t wait to see him in a debate with the Republican candidate having to give concrete anwers to tough questions. He can’t do it.

The Republican side is a disaster as well. McCain would be the least conservative nominee in recent history and frankly scares me with some of the things he believes, yet looks like a shoe-in to win the nomination.

NO candidate can win by screwing his own base. You must have your base PLUS independents. McCain still can’t win the Republican BASE. He will get WIPED OUT in the general election without his base.

I’m also irritated by the press calling McCain a “Maverick” — whenever he pulls one of his “maverick” moves, it’s always conservatives who get the shaft.

“maverick” – campaign finance – a disaster for free speech — limiting how much you can spend to speak in the media gives up the media to the mainstream media alone. When you limit any group’s ability to buy time in the media, you are limiting speech.

“maverick” – voted for stem cell research using living cells

“maverick” – voted against tax cuts (tax increases NEVER improve the economy, tax cuts ALWAYS get more money into the economy. Why? Because those horrid corporations that hire everybody ALWAYS pass along tax increases to us, through layoffs or increased prices)

“maverick” – voted against ammendement that declared marriage to be between one man and one woman. What the heck was he thinking?

“maverick” – when Senator Cornyn told him that his constituents wanted enforcement first before amnesty, McCain told him, “Shut the f—- up you little chicken sh–!” Nice. Very “maverick” of him.

Whenever you see him described as a “maverick”, just picture the conservatives getting betrayed.

I’ll vote for him against either Hillary or Obama, but I’m NOT enthusiastic, and cannot promote him.
\

NO candidate can win by screwing his own base. You must have your base PLUS independents. McCain still can’t win the Republican BASE. He will get WIPED OUT in the general election without his base.

I’m also irritated by the press calling McCain a “Maverick” — whenever he pulls one of his “maverick” moves, it’s always conservatives who get the shaft.

“maverick” – campaign finance – a disaster for free speech — limiting how much you can spend to speak in the media gives up the media to the mainstream media alone. When you limit any group’s ability to buy time in the media, you are limiting speech.

“maverick” – voted for stem cell research using living cells

“maverick” – voted against tax cuts (tax increases NEVER improve the economy, tax cuts ALWAYS get more money into the economy. Why? Because those horrid corporations that hire everybody ALWAYS pass along tax increases to us, through layoffs or increased prices)

“maverick” – voted against ammendement that declared marriage to be between one man and one woman. What the heck was he thinking?

“maverick” – when Senator Cornyn told him that his constituents wanted enforcement first before amnesty, McCain told him, “Shut the f—- up you little chicken sh–!” Nice. Very “maverick” of him.

Whenever you see him described as a “maverick”, just picture the conservatives getting betrayed.

I’ll vote for him against either Hillary or Obama, but I’m NOT enthusiastic, and cannot promote him.

And for once, the VP actually is very important, since McCain is 72 years old. I’m skeptical that he’ll make it through 4 years of the most stressful job in the world. Meaning the running mate will become president eventually. Romney might be President yet.

Well, well, well…Hillary is finally coming down to solidify her Hispanic base in South Texas. Presidential candidates NEVER show up in the Rio Grande Valley, which historically votes as a block for democrats (although the Valley went to George W…it’s a Texas thing), but now that the race is on in the primary, here comes Hillary, and probably Obama not far behind.

Sadly, I won’t be at her speech (just a few miles from my front door), because I’m sure I’ll be too busy, but I might make time for Obama when he shows up.

Hillary was in McAllen this morning. Alas, I was preaching at Kings Way during Hillary’s speech (1/4 mile away), but I had a mole in the room: Keith Anderson. Keith texted throughout the rally, then called and gave me a report.

Keith says that although the paper said there were 2,000 in attendance, and KURV said 1,000, there were actually more like 800, not all that enthusiastic people there. They got rid of all the chairs, put up dividers and pushed everybody together to make it look like a “standing room only” event. They, of course, passed out tons of bumper stickers and signs, the most amusing one which said, “Hillary is my Dama, cause she can beat Barack Obama”. Keith also noticed several “Ron Paul” signs, one actually being held by Joel Cavazos’ daughter, Pricilla (must be a Gumwood thing, Ben).

When Hillary arrived to the sound of “Working 9 to 5″, she just gave her regular stump speech and was done. Keith got within 10 feet of Hillary, but the crowd was too compacted to get a handshake. Keith noticed no other Christians from the area, except one lady who seemed embarassed to be noticed.

Hillary plans to come back in a week for a morning rally at the UTPA, then an evening rally at McAllen stadium.

This may be the worst campaign video in the history of politics. This is not an official Hillary Clinton ad. But this video does reflect the thinking of Hillary supporters. It’s an attempt by people who actually support her to convince others to do likewise. Going by this video, the supporters A) can’t sing, B) can’t write lyrics and C) don’t have any real reason to support her. They’re just…singing. And dancing.

I’m pleased to hear that there were so few people at the rally. That’s great. I don’t want to see Hillary become president. It’ll be a relief when her campaign is finally OVER. It’s becoming a real joke.

But I have mixed emotions about it, because I don’t want to see Obama become president either.

I also have mixed emotions about that too, because I don’t want to see McCain elected either.

I’m hoping for a nice third party alternative to spring up out of nowhere. Hmmm…who could pull it off? I doubt any third party candidate could actually get elected. But I won’t be surprised if there is some conservative third party candidate that robs McCain of the conservative vote which he hasn’t courted, leaving him with few votes, while Obama gets the lionshare of the enthusiastic Democrats who are coming out in huge numbers for him, along with the bulk of the independents.

Nope, I wouldn’t be surprised a bit.

I still say that the feelings of personal piety that obtain from voting for a black man will gain Obama a huge amount of support. Wouldn’t you feel very self assured that you are not actually a racist if you voted for a black man for president? I would.

I still say that the feelings of personal piety that obtain from voting for a black man will gain Obama a huge amount of support. Wouldn’t you feel very self assured that you are not actually a racist if you voted for a black man for president? I would.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You are so right on about that assessment. I don’t think there is anything you’ve ever been more accurate about.

If I’m not worried, it’s got nothing to do with McCain’s chances of winning.

I think Obama has been giving a lot more substance lately, and people love him for it. But don’t underestimate the power of the notion of the first black president. That’s a powerful idea. Blacks will vote for him in huge numbers.

As for McCain, I see a lot of people staying home on election day, that would vote for him if they had to. Nobody’s excited about him, they’re only excited about his being able to win over moderates, supposedly. But Obama I think will win the independent vote. He’s too fresh, too articulate, and let’s be honest, McCain is old and tired looking by comparison. He’s not Reagan’s successor, he’s Dole’s. Yep, this will go more like Dole-Clinton than anything else. Obama is the new JFK.

You don’t have to believe me, just mark my words. Newt Gingrich agrees with me. He said it on Fox News not long ago. Don’t underestimate how much of politics is all about appearances.

I failed to take into account the beginning of the liberal media’s shameless attempts to discredit the Republican candidate with if not fabricated at the very least exagerated stories of betrayal and infedelity.